Hey. Wow. I’ve said the same thing for years. We agree on Nutella and now this! Who knows what’s next?

i think they are all panty-waists (some are disguised, and some aren’t), and i applaud your use of the term.

People in my RL – on both sides of the aisle – know very well where I stand on stuff.

Your link states the USF, administered by the USAC, set up by the FCC “is sustained by “contributions” (called) the USF “you might see on your phone bill”… (you can’t make this stuff up).”

mikeO,

If you care at all about basic honesty, fact and truth in the stuff you post here, you should click on a link from the website that Leon put on this blog yesterday regarding so-called “Obama phones.” Remember, this a website Leon promoted. http://obamaphone.net/what-is-the-obama-phone1/

If you don’t care about basic honesty, or fact, or the truth, I won’t be surprised.

But you’d be better off surprising me and some other folks here. Your choice.

Isn’t it ironic that gun rights advocates consider gun control advocates “pantywaists”?

How have two of you missed WHY I called that blogger that?! You, too, are wrong. It was not because said blogger is anti-gun rights. It was because of said blogger’s well established status as a cowardly ANONYMOUS bomb thrower.

“Oh, wait, Jack owns guns and agrees with you, so I guess he’s not one, eh?”

Jack has come to two blogger get togethers, posted pictures of himself more than once on this blog, and liberally writes and posts under his full name elsewhere (at least in more official circumstances). Perhaps it’s just this blog. I don’t know.

Your link states the USF, administered by the USAC, set up by the FCC “is sustained by “contributions” (called) the USF “you might see on your phone bill”… (you can’t make this stuff up).
So you give your monthly “contribution” dollars in your USF and the USAC takes a bite for administration, then gives what is left to USF who takes a bite for administration, then gives what is left to “safelink” to run the program (after taking their administration fees of course). And of course those who pay are not “taxpayers”.

Yep… seems like the perfect movement of assets to those in need. REALLY?

I guess it’s your personal perspective of the world. None of us in our family are naive, believe me. But neither do we feel in constant danger from the “criminal element”. Today I guess I fear the gun toters (the vast majority of whom I know are good, honest folks). The more guns to me means the more likely they are to be used in instances when they shouldn’t. For every 100 people who carry, there’s going to be one hair trigger guy who’s never been convicted of anything but has a temper ready to go off at the merest perceived slight. I’m more concerned about that gun toting “law abiding” citizen who too quickly resorts to using guns instead of words or even fists. All you have to do is look at the hot tempered guys on these videos. They’re the ones who scare me…

Not only do I post under my real name, I’ll give directions to anyone who wants to find me when they threaten me. I do this because as inflammatory as I can be online, I believe in taking responsibility for my words and actions. I own them and I refuse to fear any threats for which my own words were the catalyst.

In the better part of twenty years of lobbing insults on the web, I’ve met exactly one internet tough guy who actually followed my directions and came to find me, after at least a dozen other no-shows. We shook hands upon introduction, grabbed a pack of beer and rode ATVs all day. I still hang out with him on occasion and he loves to tell everyone how we met when he came to “whoop ass on some internet punk”. My firearms were locked in the vault at home, too. No one needs a weapon to call a bluff.

We have freedom of speech in this country. If you have to hide behind a pseudonym and aren’t willing to own what you say, what’s the point in saying anything at all? And it most certainly is hiding.